Listening to arguments rather than people

Cartesian trigger-puppets

Question: Should we listen to arguments rather than people?

Background information: An “Argument” is where one or more premises (supporting propositions) provide reasons to believe a conclusion (main proposition). A “Proposition” is a truth-bearing statement (that is, a statement that bears truth and falsity). Examples of propositions include: "All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." These propositions form the following argument: (premise 1) “All men are mortal.”; (premise 2) “Socrates is a man.”; and (conclusion) “Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.”

Thesis statement: We should listen to arguments rather than people. First, because arguments necessarily contain truth-bearers, not people. Secondly, because people necessarily possess evaluational characteristics which are often irrelevant to the truth of the arguments they are presenting. Lastly, people have biases which necessarily predispose them to commit ad hominem fallacies (bringing negative characteristics of a person to bear on the argument they are presenting).

To begin, whenever an argument is being presented by a person, the person making the argument is not the truth-bearer, rather the propositions of their argument is. If a person makes the statement “A bachelor is an unmarried man”, the person’s characteristics (e.g., dishonesty, ignorance of marriage, immoral behavior, etc.) bring nothing to bear on whether or not the statement is true or false. The truth or falsity of the statement remains the same nonetheless, despite the characteristics of the person is making it.

Next, all people are biased to evaluate the information they receive based on the source in which they received the information from. For example, if a person whom you perceive as being foolish or dishonest presents to you new information regarding what is healthy or legal, you will, no doubt, consider the information with more skepticism than you would, say, a doctor or lawyer. In which case, your considerations regarding the truth of the information will necessarily be influenced by your perception of the person presenting the information to you. Since your perceptions of the person have no bearing on the truth of the information, they should not influence your considerations regarding the truth of the information.

Finally, since our considerations of information being presented to us is necessarily predisposed to biases based upon the (largely) non sequitur characteristics of the individual presenting it, we have a proclivity to commit ad hominem fallacies. Ad hominem attacks are based on personal prejudices, they aim at the individuals character or motive, rather than the truth of their arguments. Evaluating arguments should be based on logic and reasoning, rather than the personal attributes of the person making the argument. For example, if someone who is notoriously bad at math presents the following argument: “The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c).” (that a2 + b2 = c2 for a right angled triangle). The argument is true regardless whether or not the individual is mathematically competent — based on the evidence.

Conclusion: Seeing as we need not evaluate the characteristics of the person making an argument, and that by doing so we allow our biases to influence the way we consider them (risking ad hominem attacks), we should indeed listen to arguments rather than people.

Additional takeaway: Why not present and consider political arguments, rather than elect officials with an agenda? Why not address each issue democratically, rather than allow politicians to wheel and deal with each other? Anyone who wants to participate is welcome, so long as they operate within the landscape of the arguments. To fail in doing so is to fail to participate.

alan1000

I'm not sure that your distinction between "listening to people" and "listening to arguments" will withstand critical analysis. There is certainly a valid distinction between "listening to opinions" and "listening to reasoned arguments". Is this what you are referring to?

ChatteringMonkey

Additional takeaway: Why not present and consider political arguments, rather than elect officials with an agenda? Why not address each issue democratically, rather than allow politicians to wheel and deal with each other? Anyone who wants to participate is welcome, so long as they operate within the landscape of the arguments. To fail in doing so is to fail to participate. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It would probably be impractical, as is any form of direct democracy.

Conclusion: Seeing as we need not evaluate the characteristics of the person making an argument, and that by doing so we allow our biases to influence the way we consider them (risking ad hominem attacks), we should indeed listen to arguments rather than people. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I do generally agree with this. Probably because i'm personally a bit more predisposed to the rational than most, I tend to look past the person making the arguments generally... but I do think an argument can be made that the person and his history/values does matter a lot. As did Nietzsche for example:

"I have gradually come to realize what every great philosophy so far has been: a confession of faith on the part of its author, and a type of involuntary and unself-conscious memoir; in short, that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constitute the true living seed from which the whole plant has always grown."

My tendencies to ignore the person making the arguments notwithstanding, I have found this to be largely true. People are not really rational at base, but often rather "rationalizing". And so in that sense it does also matter who is making the argument and for what reason, aside from arguments also having some merit on their own in the abstract.

I kind of like the Bayesian approach to all of this, which does take into account peoples histories and their specific experiences - which can wildly differ for person to person - as constitutive for how people come to their beliefs... but it also tries to incorporate a measured and reasoned approach to adjusting those beliefs.

Alkis Piskas

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Can't really get it. Don't arguments come from people?
Do you mean listening to arguments independently of who is making them, i.e. not being influenced by the person who is making them?
But isn't this what we normally do? If we listen and react to arguments based on our liking or disliking of the person whom they are coming from, well this is not philosophizing.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Alkis Piskas

Here's an example. Sometimes a random right winger will bring up some empirical data and statistics about racial groups in relation to crime or intelligence or something along those lines, and then proceed and formulate a conclusion that seems to follow those data and stats. In the abstract, and looking only at the argument, he would seem to be making a solid argument. But if we look at the person making the argument, maybe we could say based on his history, that he is making that particular argument only to justify or promote racist views.

Often in public debate it's not really about the argument an sich, but what is implied by making a particular argument. An argument can be used as a rhetorical device, and is often very good at persuasion because who can argue with some solid logic right?

OP wants to say we should ignore the person making the argument and only look at the merits of the argument. I would say it depends. In an ideal world where everybody is an honest philosopher making desinterested arguments, yes by all means look at the arguments only. Things don't work like that in reality however, people do have agenda's and arguments are made to steer people into certain directions. Therefor I would say, it does matter who is making what argument.

Alkis Piskas

But if we look at the person making the argument, maybe we could say based on his history, that he is making that particular argument only to justify or promote racist views. — ChatteringMonkey

But isn't this what I meant by being influenced by the person who makes the argument?
This can happen when we are listening to opinions, which are subjective, personal. Arguments, on the other hand, are impersonal. Logic has no face, identity, color or smell.

I like sushi

Question: Should we listen to arguments rather than people? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This is basically the foundation of philosophy is it not?

I think there may be some issue with assessing more opened ended ideas. Meaning sometimes there is no obvious conclusion and a perspective is being looked at and this can be when ‘people’ act as if the ideas presented are either ridiculous or construed as facts.

‘Debates’ are for personalities ‘winning’ but merely ‘winning’ a debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the position. A debate is just a case of jousting rather than a genuine pursuit of ideas and possible truths.

god must be atheist

Original poster: Noble and brave thought. Especially on this site. Because although we are not political, and there is no money at stake, nor lives, nor oxen, nor cows; we still hold grudges and we build vendettas on this site if we feel our honour is threatened or if we feel we should know what's going on, but don't.

What I am trying to say is that your request is admirable, but it does not work on a site where reason should be totally the rule; that is here, on a philosophy site. I say you can't reasonably expect reason to prevail on other venues of disagreement.

ChatteringMonkey

Arguments, on the other hand, are impersonal. Logic has no face, identity, color or smell. — Alkis Piskas

An argument is always made by someone. While an argument in the abstract ( which is a fiction) may be impersonal, the act of making an argument is not. Someone's making a choice in why one wants to make a particular argument and not make others.

T Clark

Question: Should we listen to arguments rather than people?

Background information: An “Argument” is where one or more premises (supporting propositions) provide reasons to believe a conclusion (main proposition). A “Proposition” is a truth-bearing statement (that is, a statement that bears truth and falsity). Examples of propositions include: "All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." These propositions form the following argument: (premise 1) “All men are mortal.”; (premise 2) “Socrates is a man.”; and (conclusion) “Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.” — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What you've described isn't, and shouldn't be, the typical form that an argument takes on the forum. If I say "I hold this truth to be self-evident - all people are created equal," there is no simple logical road that gets us to a resolution. It's an essay question, not true/false or even multiple choice.

If a person makes the statement “A bachelor is an unmarried man”, the person’s characteristics (e.g., dishonesty, ignorance of marriage, immoral behavior, etc.) bring nothing to bear on whether or not the statement is true or false. The truth or falsity of the statement remains the same nonetheless, despite the characteristics of the person is making it. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This would be true except that most questions require knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts and conditions. For that reason, the credibility of those in the argument is an important consideration. For example, there are members of the forum who make technical scientific claims that are inconsistent with current science. In such a situation, it doesn't make sense to criticize the details of a long, involved, and unsupported argument. One good solution is to avoid the discussion. On the other hand, criticizing the credibility of the person making the claim is not irrelevant.

T Clark

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

All that being said, I agree with your general point.

Alkis Piskas

Someone's making a choice in why one wants to make a particular argument and not make others. — ChatteringMonkey

I see what you mean here. But this doesn't match the statement of your topic "Listening to arguments rather than people".

Anyway, I accept what you are saying here. so everything is OK.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Alkis Piskas

Perhaps it’s more the norm in philosophy, but I’m talking about the rest of the world. Why don’t they in politics?

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪T Clark

What you've described isn't, and shouldn't be, the typical form that an argument takes on the forum. If I say "I hold this truth to be self-evident - all people are created equal," there is no simple logical road that gets us to a resolution. It's an essay question, not true/false or even multiple choice. — T Clark

We use premises that we believe are true. All arguments run back to fundamental presuppositions or axioms. If you take issue with a premise, I am happy to provide an argument for it. I take what I’ve said to be commonly believed so I began there. Just like the argument: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is a mortal. It’s fine to question or challenge the premises (that all men are mortal, and that Socrates is a man), but most accept them.

This would be true except that most questions require knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts and conditions. For that reason, the credibility of those in the argument is an important consideration. For example, there are members of the forum who make technical scientific claims that are inconsistent with current science. In such a situation, it doesn't make sense to criticize the details of a long, involved, and unsupported argument. One good solution is to avoid the discussion. On the other hand, criticizing the credibility of the person making the claim is not irrelevant. — T Clark

I think this is the problem I’m talking about. If I teach a parrot to say “2 + 2 = 5” it would be making an accurate statement. It has no concept of mathematics, but the STATEMENT is the same nonetheless. The same goes with an argument. If we teach someone who knows no English to make the utterance of the Aristotelian syllogism, they would be making an accurate argument despite lacking the semantics of what they just said.

Yohan

Critical thinking involves being able to analyze the merits of arguments, and it also means being able to discern the character and trustworthiness of sources (people being a type of source).
Both are important skills to be developed, separately.
The bigger problem of judging people rather than arguments is judging people based on their man given credentials rather than on their character and motivation.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪ChatteringMonkey

It’s not that it’s impossible for a persons character or motive to matter when regarding their argument. They could be arguing ABOUT their character or motives. I’m hard pressed to think of another valid reason. If what is said is true, then its true independent of the circumstances of the individual speaking. Could you provide me with a hypothetical where they do?

ChatteringMonkey

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

It's not that I think the person matters for the validity of the argument, it's that I think often it's not the argument that matters in a discussion, but what the person is getting at when making a particular argument.... what their motive is.

Consider the example of the bigot/racist making some seemingly good argument about racial groups I gave earlier in response to another poster. When confronted with that argument, I don't think one should engage with the argument, I think one can disregard it because the argument itself is not really what he is getting at ultimately. I'm certainly not interested in playing the game they are trying to set up.

Maybe this is a somewhat sideways answer to your question in that I kindof changed the terms of the discussion, but I do think that generally in the real world this is what matters. People aren't that rational and rarely I find myself in a discussion where both interlocutors are predominantly interested in the argument for the arguments sake.

Alkis Piskas

Perhaps it’s more the norm in philosophy, but I’m talking about the rest of the world. Why don’t they in politics? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I already said that to @ChatteringMonkey: Arguments are impersonal. Logic has no face, identity, color or smell. Which means that whoever makes a stetement --a philosopher or a layman, an intelligent or unintelligent person, etc.-- it can be judged solely based on rules of logic, sound reasoning, critical thinking and, of course, facts. A layman can make a perfectly interesting and valid statement about "existence" at any time. Only that the chances and frequency of this happening are much less than for a philosopher who knows the subject of "existence" much better and has been involved in it much longer and often. And on the contrary, they can both make invalid statements based on faulty logic and/or lack of knowledge (facts). They can be both measured with the same stick.

Agent Smith

Syād ...

Good call OP. You don't really blame a computer, call it out, for storing, processing, for instance, Nazi ideology. We humans are, to some degree, in some sense, computers. Why should any person be criticized for his/her thoughts? Hence the need to prove some ideas as illogical instead of pulling somebody up as bad/evil/immoral.

Having said that, prudentia is a different kettle of fish; truth or logic (rationality) ain't the only game in town is what I mean.

Listening to arguments rather than people

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions